Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority
under section 2429.1 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, based on a
stipulation of facts by the parties.

The issues are: (1) whether Respondent Lower Colorado
Regional Office (Regional Office) violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to
bargain with the Charging Party concerning its intention to discontinue payment
of 25 percent Sunday premium pay for bargaining unit employees, and by
thereafter terminating such payment; and (2) whether Respondent Bureau of
Reclamation (Bureau) violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by
interfering with the bargaining relationship between the parties at the level
of exclusive recognition when it directed the Regional Office to terminate the
payment of Sunday premium pay and also by refusing to bargain with the Charging
Party.

For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Bureau
violated the Statute by interfering with the parties' bargaining relationship.
The other allegations of the complaint will be dismissed.

II. Background

The Charging Party holds exclusive recognition for the
following unit: "All wage board employees up to and including Foreman 1 of the
Boulder Canyon Project, Bureau of Reclamation, Region 3, Boulder City[,]
Nevada." Stipulation of Facts at 2. Since July 7, 1972, the Charging Party has
negotiated wages for bargaining unit employees. Prior to and since August 19,
1972, bargaining unit employees have received 25 percent premium pay for
regularly scheduled non-overtime Sunday work.

The parties also stipulated that since at least 1972, the
Regional Office and the Charging Party have used the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power as a basis for determining prevailing pay rates and pay
practices. Stipulation of Facts at 4. Additionally, from 1975 to 1979, the
parties also used Southern California Edison for the same purpose. Id.
Since 1971, neither of those entities has paid Sunday premium pay for regularly
scheduled non-overtime Sunday work. Id.

On April 2, 1987, the Regional Office notified the
Charging Party that Sunday premium pay would be discontinued on June 7, 1987.
The Charging Party responded on April 23 and requested that the Regional Office
bargain regarding the impact of the proposed change. The Regional Office
responded that there was no legal basis on which to continue such payment but
agreed to delay the implementation date to June 21, 1987. During a meeting
between the Charging Party and the Regional Office on June 10, the Charging
Party took the position that the matter of Sunday premium pay was negotiable as
to substance and proposed that Sunday premium pay be continued until
negotiations over the substance of the change, as well as impact bargaining,
had been completed. On July 9, the Regional Office reiterated its position that
it had no authority to pay the discontinued Sunday premium pay. The Agency
stated that it remained ready to discuss impact and implementation proposals if
the Charging Party submitted specific proposals. The Charging Party responded
on July 14 reiterating its position that Sunday premium pay should be
continued. On July 19, the Regional Office terminated the payment of 25 percent
Sunday premium pay. The parties stipulated that the action of the Regional
Office in refusing to bargain with the Charging Party and terminating Sunday
premium pay was based on directions received from the Bureau. Stipulation of
Facts at 4.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. General Counsel

The General Counsel argued that the Regional Office
violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by terminating Sunday
premium pay. The General Counsel claimed that Sunday premium pay had been
negotiated since before August 19, 1972, and that it had matured into an
established condition of employment which could not be changed until the
Regional Office's bargaining obligation had been met.

The General Counsel also argued that payment of Sunday
premium pay is fully negotiable and that the Regional Office's arguments for
refusing to negotiate are the same as those presented and rejected by the
Authority in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 611, AFL-CIO and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Rio Grande Project, 26 FLRA 906 (1987) (Bureau of Reclamation),
motion for reconsideration denied, 28 FLRA 587 (1987), petition for
review filed sub nom.Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Rio Grande Project v. FLRA, No. 87-2483 (10th Cir. Oct. 8, 1987) (in which
the Authority found negotiable a proposal concerning 25 percent Sunday premium
pay).

The General Counsel also argued that the Bureau violated
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) by interfering with the Regional Office's bargaining
obligation and by refusing to bargain on a negotiable matter prior to its
implementation. In support of this argument, the General Counsel relied on the
Respondent's "Answer to the Amended Complaint" which indicated that the Bureau
authorized the Regional Office's refusal to bargain and termination of Sunday
premium pay. However, the General Counsel also claimed that the Regional Office
never advised the Charging Party that it was acting at the direction of the
Bureau. Instead, the Regional Office indicated to the Charging Party that its
decision to terminate Sunday premium pay was based on its interpretation of
law. Therefore, even apart from the Bureau's conduct, the Regional Office must
be found to have violated the Statute since there was no evidence in the record
to demonstrate that the Regional Office was prevented from fulfilling its
bargaining obligation to the extent of its discretion.

To remedy the unfair labor practice conduct, the General
Counsel requested a statusquoante order and backpay,
with interest, for affected bargaining unit employees.

B. Respondents

The Respondents' position was that Sunday premium pay was
terminated because there was no legal authority to make such payment. The
Respondents argued that by law, negotiated pay practices must be in accordance
with prevailing pay rates and pay practices in the private sector. Since Sunday
premium pay was not a prevailing pay practice, such payment could not continue.
The Respondents also argued that the Charging Party did not submit any specific
proposals to the Regional Office on the impact and implementation of the
termination and that the Regional Office discontinued payment based on
directions received from the Bureau.

More specifically, the Respondents indicated that Sunday
premium pay for non-overtime work was not the subject of negotiations in any
collective bargaining agreement between the parties and that no evidence was
offered to show that Sunday premium pay had been negotiated prior to or since
1972. Brief at 6. The Respondents argued that since Sunday premium pay was not
negotiated previously, it is not negotiable under section 704 of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, 1218, codified
at 5 U.S.C. § 5343 (Amendments) (1982 ed.)) and section 9(b) of the
Prevailing Rate Systems Act (Pub. L. No. 92-392, codified at 5 U.S.C. §
5343 (Amendments, note) (1982 ed.)).(*) Brief at
11-12.

The Respondents indicated that two criteria contained in
section 704 must be met in order for a pay practice to be negotiable: (1) the
specific pay practice must have been the subject of negotiation prior to August
19, 1972; and (2) the specific pay practice must be prevailing in the local
private sector area of an agency's operations. According to the Respondents,
the specific pay practice of 25 percent Sunday premium pay was not the subject
of negotiations prior to August 19, 1972 and is not a prevailing pay practice
in the local area. The Respondents admitted that Sunday premium pay had been
received by employees although, as stated above, the Respondents maintained
that Sunday premium pay had not been the subject of negotiations prior to
August 19, 1972. Brief at 11-12. The Respondents indicated that Sunday premium
pay was paid based on an incorrect assumption that the employees were
statutorily entitled to such payment. Id. at 11.

The Respondents also argued that the Authority's decision
in Bureau of Reclamation is distinguishable in that the subject of
premium pay previously was negotiated by the parties in that case. Here, the
Respondents argued that the subject of premium pay was not specifically
negotiated prior to August 19, 1972 and is not negotiable. Furthermore, the
Respondents asserted that the specific subject matter at issue is not premium
pay--a broad pay category covering different rates of compensation and
involving different pay practices. Brief at 12-13. Rather, the subject matter
concerns "a definite rate of extra compensation only for non-overtime
work on Sunday known as Sunday premium pay." (emphasis in original). Id.
at 12.

The Respondents also argued that "premium pay" is a
generic term and is not a specific pay practice. Brief at 13. Therefore, the
Respondents argued that premium pay does not constitute a pay practice under
section 704 which was negotiated by the parties prior to August 19, 1972. Brief
at 15.

The Respondents further argued that only specific pay
rates and pay practices can be surveyed to determine what the prevailing rates
and practices are. Therefore, the Respondents continued, since premium pay
concerns more than a specific pay practice, it would be impossible to survey
"premium pay" and the parties could not possibly have negotiated prior to
August 19, 1972 on the subject of "premium pay." Brief at 16. The Respondents
also argued that Sunday premium pay is not an improvement or modification of
premium pay under section 9(b) which would render the matter subject to
negotiations. Brief at 17.

Next, the Respondents argued that section 704 requires
that pay and pay practices be negotiated in accordance with prevailing
practices in the local area. The Respondents maintained that since Sunday
premium pay was not a prevailing practice in the local area, negotiations are
not authorized under section 704. Brief at 19. Additionally, the Respondents
argued that section 704 does not authorize bargaining unit employees here to
maintain equality with other Federal prevailing rate employees whose pay is
fixed administratively. Brief at 34.

All laborers and mechanics employed in the construction
of any part of the project, or in the operation, maintenance, or replacement of
any part of the Hoover Dam, shall be paid not less than the prevailing rate of
wages or compensation for work of a similar nature prevailing in the locality
of the project. In the event any dispute arises as to what are the prevailing
rates, the determination thereof shall be made by the Secretary of the
Interior, and his decision, subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of
Labor, shall be final.

The Respondents argued that the language of the Act
provides that employees are to be paid on the basis of compensation for work of
a similar nature prevailing in the locality of the project. Brief at 36.
Further, the Act provides a mechanism for establishing prevailing rates, in the
event of a dispute, by the Secretary of the Interior with the concurrence of
the Secretary of Labor. Id. Therefore, the Respondents argued that the
pay of employees of the Boulder Canyon Project must be determined on the basis
of prevailing rates and practices in the locality of the project.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

In order to determine whether the Respondents engaged in
an unfair labor practice, we must first decide whether the matter of Sunday
premium pay was within the duty to bargain. For the reasons set forth below, we
find that it was.

A. Sunday Premium Pay Was Within the Duty to
Bargain

In Bureau of Reclamation, we considered and
rejected the same arguments now raised by the Respondents in finding negotiable
a proposal which would continue the long-standing practice of providing 25
percent Sunday premium pay to bargaining unit employees. We stated that
bargaining under section 704 is not limited only to particular provisions which
were specifically negotiated by parties in their collective bargaining
agreements prior to August 19, 1972. Rather, where a disputed proposal involves
a subject matter that had been negotiated by the parties previously, the matter
is within the duty to bargain.

We also found that the matter of Sunday premium pay was
negotiable whether or not it was a prevailing practice in the local area. We
found that the principles of pay equity established by Congress require that
employees who negotiate their pay rates and pay practices under sections 9(b)
and 704 be permitted to negotiate over Sunday premium pay in order to maintain
equity with prevailing rate employees in the local area who are entitled to
that pay by law.

We also found that the broad purpose of sections 9(b) and
704 was to preserve the right of employees covered by those sections to
negotiate over the continuation of benefits they had historically received and
were not intended to deprive employees of existing benefits.

The Respondents claimed that the decision in Bureau of
Reclamation is distinguishable from this case because in Bureau of
Reclamation, the subject of premium pay had been negotiated previously by
the parties, whereas in this case, the subject of premium pay had not been
specifically negotiated prior to August 19, 1972. The Respondents noted,
moreover, that premium pay refers to different rates of compensation and pay
practices and is not itself a specific pay practice.

We agree with the Respondents that premium pay can refer
to a variety of pay rates and pay practices. However, we find that the
Respondents' distinction between Bureau of Reclamation and this case is
misplaced. In Bureau of Reclamation, the agency acknowledged that there
existed a history of negotiations on premium pay provisions. Although the
Respondents have not so acknowledged here, there is evidence that the parties
negotiated over pay matters prior to August 19, 1972. The parties' 1971
collective bargaining agreement, which was made a part of the record in this
case as General Counsel Exhibit 2, provides in Article IV, Section 3 that
"[r]ates of pay and working conditions already in effect ... are hereby adopted
and will remain in effect until modified or amended." Thus, the parties
incorporated existing pay matters into their agreement prior to August 19,
1972. Additionally, the parties stipulated that bargaining unit employees have
received Sunday premium pay since prior to August 19, 1972. We find sufficient
evidence that there existed a history of bargaining over pay matters prior to
August 19, 1972 so as to render the subject of Sunday premium pay within the
obligation to bargain.

We note that absent sections 9(b) and 704 the parties
could not have negotiated Sunday premium pay. SeeAmerican Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and Department of Defense, Department of the
Army and Air Force, Headquarters, Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Dallas,
Texas, 32 FLRA 591 (1988). Here, however, the parties negotiated pay
matters in the past. Thus, under sections 9(b) and 704 the parties could
negotiate Sunday premium pay even if they had not negotiated that specific
matter in the past. SeeUnited States Information Agency, Voice of
America and National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1418, 33 FLRA
No. 74 (1988).

We also reject the Respondents' argument that there was
no obligation to bargain since Sunday premium pay was not a prevailing practice
in the local area, for the reasons set out in Bureau of Reclamation.
SeealsoNational Federation of Federal Employees, Local 341
and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Yakima Agency
and the Wapato Irrigation Project, 30 FLRA 783 (1987), petition for
review filed sub nom.U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Yakima Agency and the WAPATO Irrigation Project v. FLRA, No.
88-7077 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 1988) (in which we held that we need not determine
the precise nature of prevailing practices in order to make negotiability
determinations under the Statute).

The Respondents additionally argued in this case that
section 15 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act, which governs the pay of
bargaining unit employees, requires that their pay be determined on the basis
of prevailing rates and practices in the locality of the project and provides a
mechanism for resolving disputes as to what the prevailing rates are. We find
that the provision in question does not render the matter of Sunday premium pay
outside the duty to bargain. Section 15 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act by
its terms is concerned with bargaining unit employees not being paid
less than the prevailing rate of wages or compensation. There is no such
dispute here. Instead, the dispute involves the continuation of the practice of
Sunday premium pay. In addition, the portion of the Act which concerns disputes
over prevailing rates does not render the matter of Sunday premium pay
nonnegotiable. As previously stated, sections 9(b) and 704 guarantee the
continuance of negotiated labor-management contract provisions regardless of
restrictions in the compensation laws otherwise applicable to prevailing rate
employees. Accord 59 Comp. Gen. 527 (1980).

Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that the
matter of Sunday premium pay is within the duty to bargain. We next address the
respective bargaining obligations of the Respondents.

B. The Respondents' Bargaining
Obligations

The complaint alleged that the Regional Office violated
section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute by refusing to bargain over the
termination of Sunday premium pay and by terminating such pay. The complaint
also alleged that the Bureau violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute
by interfering with the bargaining relationship between the parties at the
level of exclusive recognition when it directed the Regional Office to
terminate the payment of Sunday premium pay and also by refusing to bargain
with the Charging Party.

Having found that the matter of Sunday premium pay was
within the duty to bargain, we find that there was an obligation to bargain
over the decision to terminate the practice. Since the Regional Office is the
level of exclusive recognition, it was obligated to bargain with the Charging
Party. However, the parties stipulated that the decision to terminate Sunday
premium pay was based on directions received from the Bureau. Accordingly, we
find that the conduct of the Bureau in directing the Regional Office to
terminate such payment interfered with the bargaining relationship of the
parties at the level of exclusive recognition in violation of section
7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute. SeeDepartment of the Interior,
Water and Power Resources Service, Grand Coulee Project, Grand Coulee,
Washington, 9 FLRA 385 (1982). Since the Bureau itself has no bargaining
obligation with the Charging Party, we find no additional violation of section
7116(a)(1) and (5), as alleged.

As to the conduct of the Regional Office, we disagree
with the General Counsel that the Regional Office also violated the Statute
since there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that the Regional Office
was prevented from fulfilling its bargaining obligation to the extent of its
discretion. As noted, the Bureau directed the Regional Office to terminate the
payment of Sunday premium pay. Therefore, the Regional Office had no choice but
to terminate the practice and could not have negotiated with the Charging Party
concerning the decision to terminate. Additionally, the Regional Office
demonstrated a desire to fulfill the bargaining obligation it thought remained
by agreeing to bargain over the impact and implementation of the change and by
agreeing to delay implementation of the change until the Charging Party
submitted proposals. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the
conduct of the Regional Office was violative of the Statute, as
alleged.

V. Remedy

We agree with the General Counsel that a statusquoante order is appropriate. We have held that where an agency
has violated the Statute by refusing to negotiate over its decision to change
working conditions, the Statute requires the imposition of statusquoante remedies, absent special circumstances, in order not to
render meaningless the mutual obligation under the Statute to negotiate
concerning changes in conditions of employment. SeeVeterans
Administration, West Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California,
23 FLRA 278 (1986). Accordingly, we will order that the Bureau direct the
Regional Office to reinstitute the practice of Sunday premium pay.

Additionally, we find that an award of backpay, with
interest, under the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, is appropriate. The
Authority has uniformly held that in order for an award of backpay to be
authorized under the Back Pay Act, there must be not only a determination that
the employees were affected by an unwarranted personnel action, but also a
determination that such unwarranted action directly resulted in the withdrawal
or reduction in the pay, allowances, or differentials that the employees
otherwise would have earned or received. See, for example,
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 51 and U.S. Department of
the Mint, Old Mint Building, Customer Service Division, 15 FLRA 865 (1984).
Under Authority precedent, a refusal to bargain violation under section
7116(a)(5) of the Statute constitutes an unjustified or unwarranted personnel
action. Veterans Administration, Washington, D.C. and Veterans
Administration Medical and Regional Office Center, Fargo, North Dakota, 22
FLRA 612 (1986).

We find here that the Bureau's unlawful conduct in
preventing the Regional Office from fulfilling its bargaining obligation
constituted an unwarranted or unjustified personnel action. We also find, in
agreement with the General Counsel, that the pay of bargaining unit employees
was reduced when the practice of Sunday premium pay was terminated and that
such reduction would not have occurred but for the unjustified personnel
action.

The inclusion of interest on the backpay award is
consistent with a December 22, 1987 amendment to 5 U.S.C. § 5596(b). The
text of that amendment can be found in the Continuing Appropriations Act of
1988, Pub. L. No. 100-202, 1988 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News (101 Stat.)
1329-1, 1329-428--1329-429. SeealsoDefense Logistics Agency
and American Federation of Government Employees, Local No. 2501, 31 FLRA
754 (1988).

ORDER

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington,
D.C., shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Directing the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, Boulder City, Nevada to
discontinue payment of 25 percent Sunday premium pay and thereby interfering
with the bargaining relationship between the Lower Colorado Regional Office and
the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1978,
AFL-CIO.

(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

2. Take the following affirmative action in order to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute:

(a) Direct the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, Boulder City, Nevada to
reinstitute the practice of 25 percent Sunday premium pay for bargaining unit
employees represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1978, AFL-CIO.

(b) In accordance with the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. §5596, as amended, make whole bargaining unit employees for any loss of
pay or benefits they suffered as a result of the improper termination of 25
percent Sunday premium pay.

(c) Post at the Lower Colorado Regional Office, Boulder
City, Nevada, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the
Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be
signed by the head of the Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D.C., and shall be
posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure
that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.

(d) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules
and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region IX, Federal Labor
Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order as
to what steps have been taken to comply.

The other allegations of the complaint which were found
not to have violated the Statute are dismissed.

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF
THE

FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
STATUTE

WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT direct the Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, Boulder City, Nevada to
discontinue payment of 25 percent Sunday premium pay and thereby interfere with
the bargaining relationship between the Regional Office and the American
Federation of Government Employees, Local 1978, AFL-CIO.

WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured
by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

WE WILL direct the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, Boulder City, Nevada to
reinstitute the practice of 25 percent Sunday premium pay for bargaining unit
employees represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1978, AFL-CIO.

WE WILL in accordance with the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, as amended, make whole bargaining unit employees for any loss of
pay or benefits they suffered as a result of the improper termination of 25
percent Sunday premium pay.

__________________________Agency)

Dated:___________
By:__________________________

(Signature) (Title)

This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.

If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional
Director, Region IX, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 901
Market Street, Suite 220, San Francisco, CA 94103 and whose telephone number
is: (415) 995-5000.

APPENDIX

*/ Section 704 of the CSRA provides
that:

(a) Those terms and conditions of employment and other
employment benefits with respect to Government prevailing rate employees to
whom section 9(b) of Public Law 92-392 applies which were the subject of
negotiation in accordance with prevailing rates and practices prior to August
19, 1972, shall be negotiated on and after the date of the enactment of this
Act {Oct. 13, 1978} in accordance with the provisions of section 9(b) of Public
Law 92-392 without regard to any provision of chapter 71 of title 5, United
States Code (as amended by this title), to the extent that any such provision
is inconsistent with this paragraph.

(b) The pay and pay practices relating to employees
referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be negotiated in
accordance with prevailing rates and pay practices without regard to any
provision of--

(A) chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code (as
amended by this title), to the extent that any such provision is inconsistent
with this paragraph;

(B) subchapter IV of chapter 53 and subchapter V of
chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code; or

(C) any rule, regulation, decision, or order relating
to rates of pay or pay practices under subchapter IV of chapter 53 or
subchapter V of chapter 55 of title 5, United States
Code.

Section 9(b) of Pub. L. No. 92-392 provides
that:

The amendments made by this Act shall not be construed
to--

(1) abrogate, modify, or otherwise affect in any way the
provisions of any contract in effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Aug.
19, 1972] pertaining to the wages, the terms and conditions of employment, and
other employment benefits, or any of the foregoing matters, for Government
prevailing rate employees and resulting from negotiations between Government
agencies and organizations of Government employees;

(2) nullify, curtail, or otherwise impair in any way the
right of any party to such contract to enter into negotiations after the date
of enactment of this Act [Aug. 19, 1972] for the renewal, extension,
modification, or improvement of the provisions of such contract or for the
replacement of such contract with a new contract; or

(3) nullify, change, or otherwise affect in any way after
such date of enactment [Aug. 19, 1972] any agreement, arrangement, or
understanding in effect on such date [Aug. 19, 1972] with respect to the
various items of subject matter of the negotiations on which any such contract
in effect on such date [Aug. 19, 1972] is based or prevent the inclusion of
such items of subject matter in connection with the renegotiation of any such
contract, or the replacement of such contract with a new contract, after such
date [Aug. 19, 1972].